Academic Blog

Introduction

Hegel (1977; 1991), Marx (1976; 1982) and Weber (1946; 1982) each develop theories describing the relationship between the state and other dimensions of society. These classical theorists created the foundations of political sociology. Other influential state theorists, including Lenin (1982), Parkin (1972), Poulantzas (1973), O'Connor (1973), Offe and Ronge (1975), and Frankel (1979), drew from their work and reinterpreted it to develop their own influential theories of the state. Although each theoretical perspective explains the relationship between the state and society, there are key differences in regards to their theoretical assumptions, concepts, and logic. ​

​Hegel's Theory of the State

Hegel's theory of the state assumes a dialectic process based on ideas. Dialectic models contend that through the opposition of two dimensions, something new emerges. For Hegel (1977), society has progressed through contention between how society sees individuals and how individuals see themselves. Prevailing social conceptions (the thesis) versus a contrary ideas (antithesis) creates a new society (synthesis). Human progress is based on the development of forms of thought. The state is the result of the development of ideas and the collective wills of individuals; it is an idealized collective that transcends society.

For Hegel (1991), the state is the most progressive form of social relations because unlike the state, other forms of social relations (e.g., the family and civil society) do not represent universal altruism. Universal altruism forms solidarity among all individuals out of their collective will. The family, on the other hand, promotes selective altruism (i.e., forming solidarity among selective individuals due to familial relations). Civil society (i.e., historical periods before the establishment of a state) represents universal egoism, where people are related because of self-interest rather than the common good. The state serves the function of relating individuals through universal altruism. As such, the state is able to shape society and unify diverse collectives. According to Hegel, state managers are the group most likely to act through universal altruism because they do not have concrete economic self-interests like other groups in society.

Hegel saw the state as a way for individuals to achieve higher degrees of freedom. For Hegel, society is constantly progressing to achieve more and more degrees of freedom. The state is the result of this progress, developed to regulate self-interests and represent the common good. As such, the state works to reconcile the will of society with the will of the individual.

Marx's Theory of the State

​Marx's theory of the state was not fully developed, however, it can be induced from his critique of Hegel's theory of the state (Carnoy 1984). Like Hegel, Marx assumes a dialectic process; however, Marx's historical materialism is directly opposed to Hegel's idealism. For Marx, society has progressed through contention between the relations of production (class relations) and the forces of production (the way people transform materials). Marx argues against Hegel's focus on ideas claiming it is the material organization of society that is both the basis of representation and the basis of emancipation of society (Marx 1976). Inherent contradictions between the relations of production and the forces of production provide new incentives and mechanisms for class revolutions to result in a new mode of production. It is the material conditions of society (not the development of ideas) that drive human progress.

Marx's historical materialism led to a historical concept of the state; this is also opposed to Hegel's conception. Whereas Hegel saw the state as something that transcends the collective, Marx viewed the state as an entity subjugated to historical materialism. Society is shaped by the relations and forces of production and it is society that shapes the state. The state is the result of class conflict and provides the means of class reproduction, exploitation and dominance.

Whereas Hegel viewed the state as representative of collective wills, Marx viewed the state as representative of the ideology of the ruling class and a repressive arm of the ruling class. According to Marx (1982:26): "The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance." For Marx, super-structures (e.g.,ideology and the state) are forms of organization that are representative of the mode of production. Still, the structure of society is based on material relations. The state is reflective of class relations and provides the means for capitalist dominance.

Weber's Theory of the State

Unlike Marx and Hegel, who use a dialectic method, Weber uses ideal types. Ideal types are abstractions that rarely exist in their pure form, but provide understanding by describing the salient characteristics of an empirical phenomenon. The ideal type is a shortcut to knowledge: after we understand the ideal type, to understand the empirical form, we only have to understand the part that makes them distinct from the ideal type.

Weber's theory of the state emerges from his conceptualization of legitimate authority. Legitimate authority (i.e., accepted rule) can be characterized by three ideal types: legal authority, traditional authority and charismatic authority (Weber 1982). Legal-rational authority is rule based upon formal rules and regulations. Traditional authority is rule based on the sanctity of tradition. Charismatic authority is rule based upon devotion to an individual based on their perceived exceptionalness. According to Weber, modern society is becoming increasingly characterized by legal-rational authority.

Bureaucracies and officials are key aspects of legal-rational authority (Weber 1946). There are six key characteristics of bureaucracies: (1) set jurisdictional areas, (2) formal authority to give commands, (3) officials are held responsible to fulfill duties (4) a clear organizational hierarchy, (5) individual activities are based on formal rules, and (6) expert training is required to administer rules. Bureaucracies are administered by officials. The ideal type of the official is: (1) a vocation, (2) a position in a hierarchy which guarantees a set rank and prescribed rules, (3) an appointed position, (4) a position usually held for life, (5) compensated with a fixed salary, and (6) set for a career path. For Weber, the modern state is a form of legal-rational authority made up of bureaucracies and officials. As such, it is a power structure establishing legitimized repression.

Like Marx and unlike Hegel, Weber does not view the state as freeing for individuals or representative of universal altruism. Weber believed that the state provided a way to develop policies to better benefit society. However, he did not believe that the democratic state could achieve its goal of political equality. In modern society, the state owns a monopoly on legitimate force and the means of administration within a given territory. Legitimacy is maintained on legal-rational grounds, but the irrationality of rationality derails the state from achieving its goals (Weber 1946). The state’s ability to achieve goals of political equality is hampered by the political system and the nature of elected political officials. Although the state operates though legal-rational authority on formal-rational grounds, the state is embedded with forms of charismatic and traditional authority. For instance, elected officials employ charismatic authority to become elected (Weber 1946). Rather than campaigning on public policy and facts, political demagogues use the prejudice and passions of citizens rather than rational argument to achieve their self-interest (Weber 1946). Administrative staff also obtain their positions through forms of traditional rationality. Through allegiance to the political demagogue and the political party, administrative staff are appointed to positions of power. Although the state was designed to prevent the favoritism associated with monarchies and the age of feudalism, this has not occurred. Instead, the development of the state has expanded and centralized power structures creating a new form of monopoly of power. In conclusion, Weber theorized the democratic state as a bureaucratic power structure that legitimately dominates citizens and is incapable of achieving goals of political equality.

​Reinterpretations

Hegel, Marx and Weber provide the foundations of political sociology. As such, important social theorists drew upon their work to expand understanding of the state. Key scholars include: Lenin (1982), Parkin (1972), Poulantzas (1973), O'Connor (1973), Offe and Ronge (1975), and Frankel (1979). By building upon classical perspectives, these key scholars expanded knowledge of the relationship between the state and other key institutional arrangements in society.

Lenin's Theory of the State

​Lenin draws upon Marx's historical materialism and antagonisms between the relations and forces of production. The state is determined by the mode of production. Lenin (1982) builds upon Marx's conceptualization of the state as the repressive arm of the bourgeois. For Lenin, the state is an instrument of capitalist rule; it is the armed repressive apparatus of the capitalist class. As such, it must be completely destroyed to achieve a revolutionary change in the mode of production.

Like Marx and Weber, Lenin sees the state as a form of coercive power. However, he goes beyond prevailing theory by explaining how the state reflects class relations: through instrumental control. According to Lenin, the state is a mechanism of class dominantion. Democratic governments facilitate capitalist control through two primary mechanisms: (1) legitimizing capitalist order and mystifying the masses, and (2) allowing capitalists to make decisions behind the scenes (Lenin 1982). As such, democratic governments are not representative of collectives but serve as an instrument of the capitalist class.

Parkin's Theory of the State

Like Lenin, Parkin (1972) draws from Marx's historical materialism, examining the conditions leading to a new mode of production. Parkin (1972: 45) expands upon Marx's theory of social change: "For Marx, the antagonisms stemming from weaknesses in social integration (exemplified i the extreme case by class polarization) plus the weaknesses in system integration (the contradiction between the forces of production and the relations of production) are understood to be the twin mechanisms responsible for social transformation." Parkin asks why, when there are both antagonisms with social integration and system integration do some societies have successful revolutions and others do not.

Parkin employs Marx's concept of system contradiction to explain why some revolutions in industrial societies failed. System contradiction occurs when there is poor system integration (Parkin 1972). System integration is the degree of connectedness between the forces of production and the relations of production. When the forces of production do not adequately represent the relations of production, social change is likely to occur. However, if revolution occurs before the revolutionary class has matured within the old mode of production, the pre-mature revolution will result in weak system integration and social instability. Because the Russian Revolution occurred before capitalism was given a chance to become advanced, the Russian Revolution resulted in weak system integration and social instability. Disequilibrium established out of lack of integration between state bureaucrats and the intelligentsia was harmful to the productive forces of society, causing the Russian Revolution eventually fail.

For Parkin, the state is a historically contingent stratification structure; it is not and instrument determined by elites. Who holds power in the state varies over time and has implications for society. Revolutions are more likely to occur when there is power disequilibrium (i.e., those who are economically dominant are not politically dominant). Social stability occurs when those who are economically dominant are also politically dominant. The state is the core mechanism for distributing political power. Inconsistencies between those who hold political power and those who control society's productive forces affect the historical development of society.

Poulantzas' Theory of the State

Poulantzas builds from Marx's concept of class place to also describe class position. Class place is an individual's position in the economy (e.g., division of labor and occupation). Class position is the ideological and political alliances adopted by groups. Like Weber, Poulantzas sees class not just based on ones economic position, but also related to one's cultural and organizational position in society. As such, the capitalist class is made up of competing class factions with important economic differentiations.

For Poulantzas (1973), the state is reflective of the social relations of capitalist class factions. State bureaucracies represent the historically contingent relations among different class segments. According to Poulantzas (1978:132): "Each state branch or apparatus and each of the respective sections and levels frequently constitutes the powerbase and favored representative of a particular fractions of the bloc, or of a conflicting alliance of several fraction opposed to certain others" (Poulantzas, 1978:132). Dominant capitalist class factions join a coalition, creating a power bloc necessary to push public policy that facilitates capitalist reproduction.

Poulantzas is different from Lenin in two key ways: (1) Poulantzas' state is relatively autonomous, whereas Lenin's state is instrumentalist, and (2) Poulantzas' state is influenced by a power bloc whereas Lenin's state is influenced by a cohesive dominant class. The state policy mediates conflict between competing factions of the capitalist class. For Poulantzas (1973), the state maintains relative autonomy meaning it is separate from but tied to the means of production. The state is not an instrument of a unified capitalist class, but representative of capitalist class factions that mobilize to form a power bloc.

O'Connor's Theory of the State

O'Connor's theory of the state draws upon both Marxist and Weberian theory. Like Marx, O'Connor sees the state as necessary to perpetuate capitalist relations during economic crisis caused by inherent contradictions associated with capitalism. Like Weber, O'Connor's state is a bureaucratic form of control facilitating legitimate rule. O'Connor (1973) draws upon these classical perspectives to explain why the bureaucratic state continues to grow as capitalism advances.

For O'Connor, the state grows because it facilitates capital accumulation. Due to contradictions of capitalism (as explained by Marx), the economy is prone to periods of crisis caused by overproduction or underproduction. The state attempts to manage these crises because it requires continued profits to survive and maintain the legitimate rule. The state tries to overcome capitalist crises through social expenditures and social capital spending (O'Connor 1973). In the process of managing economic crisis, state bureaucracy and debt expands. This leads to a crisis of the state that is is distinct from but related to economic crises.

Whereas Lenin views the state as an instrument of the capitalist class, O'Connor claims there is a continuous struggle between the state and capitalist groups. According to O'Connor (1973:9): "The socialization of costs and the private appropriation of profits creates a fiscal crisis, or "structural gap," between state expenditures and state revenues." This enhances conflict between the state and the capitalist class.

Offe and Ronge's Theory of the State

Offe and Ronge advance Weberian conceptions of the state by examining the inherent contradictions between the goals of the capitalist organization of society and the goals of the bureaucratic organization of the state. The state is dependent upon the capitalist class for its sources of income, so it has interests in facilitating capital accumulation. However, the power of state managers is in direct competition with the capitalist class. The extension of state policies threatens the continuity of the current economic relations within the capitalist class. In addition, the increased size of the state threatens capitalist dominance. The state provides the means for which individuals to improve their social position which threatens capitalist order. As such, there is direct conflict between the state and the capitalist class.

Whereas Poulantzas argues that the state is part of society working to mediate class conflict, Offe and Ronge (1975), like O'Connor, claim that its role as mediator separates the state from society and provides it with the capacity to act autonomously, yet still support capitalist accumulation. Offe and Ronge focus on the power structures created by autonomous state action. The state and capitalism are related in that the state seeks to preserve the value of commodities. However, as the state functions to preserve the value of commodities, it is of economic, structural and ideological threat to capitalism. State run organizational power structures compete with monopoly capital.

Frankel's Theory of the State

Similar to O'Connor and Offe and Ronge, the state is viewed as necessary to facilitate capital accumulation. The state is distinct but intertwined with the economy. Like Weber, Frankel views the administrative capacities of the state as an efficient way to achieve goals. According to Frankel (1979), the state provides tools necessary to ensure long-term economic plans are carried out. The state administration must be continuously involved in the economy and manage conflict to maintain its own legitimacy and survival. During times of economic crisis, the legitimacy of the state is put into question, forcing the state to become involved. The state cannot be seen as distinct from the economy because they are necessarily related. The logic of capital accumulation and the logic of the state overlap because the state serves an economic role. However, state structures are not reflective of class relations, nor do they serve as an instrument of the ruling class.

Like Offe and Ronge, Frankel (1979) examines the internal divisions between the state and economic system. The state must continuously become involved in the economy in order to maintain its legitimacy. However, the legitimacy crisis of the state is ongoing, as no state in capitalist society has been able to reconcile the inherent contradictions associated with capitalism. Regardless, the state continuously becomes involved because its survival depends on it. The state threatens capitalists, as they do not hold absolute power of the state. The state is able to act autonomously in a way opposed to capitalist interests because its function is also ideological and not limited to the capitalist system. For Frankel (1979), the state is not determined by capitalism; instead it is an institutional development representative of the historical dynamics of class struggle.

Conclusion

There are numerous conceptions of the relationship between the state and other dimensions of society. However, Hegel, Marx and Weber provide a foundation for which preceding theory was built. Since key modern theorists draw from and build upon classical perspectives, it is important to understand these classical interpretations of the state.

References

​Carnoy, Martin. 1984. The State and Political Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Frankel, Boris. 1979. "On the State of the State: Marxist Theories of the State after Leninism." Theory and Society 7: 199-242.

Hegel, Georg. 1977. Hegel: Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A.V. Miller with Analysis of the Text and Foreword by J.N. Findlay. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lenin, V.I. 1982. “Selections from The Development of Capitalism in Russia, What Is to Be Done? The State and Revolution, and A Great Beginning.” Pp. 40–59 in Classes, Power, and Conflict: Classical and Contemporary Debates. Edited by Anthony Giddens and David Held. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Marx, Karl. 1976. Capital: Volume I. London, UK: Penguin Books.

Marx, Karl. 1982. “Selections from The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, The German Ideology, The Poverty of Philosophy, The Manifesto of the Communist Party, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Preface to A Contribution of the Critique of Political Economy, Value, Price, and Profit, and Capital, Vols. I and III.” Pp. 12–39 in Classes, Power, and Conflict: Classical and Contemporary Debates. Edited by Anthony Giddens and David Held. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

O’Connor, James. 1973. The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York, NY: St. Martin’s.

Offe, Claus and Volker Ronge. 1975. “Theses on the Theory of the State.” New German Critique 6:137–147.

Parkin, Frank. 1972. “System Contradiction and Political Transformation.” European Journal of Sociology 13:45–62.

Poulantzas, Nicos. 1973. “On Social Classes.” New Left Review 78:27–54.

Poulantzas, Nicos. 1978. State, Power, Socialism. London, UK: Verso.

Weber, Max. 1946. “Politics as a Vocation.” Pp. 77–128 in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Edited by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weber, Max. 1982. “Selections from Economy and Society and General Economic History.” Pp. 60–87 in Classes, Power, and Conflict: Classical and Contemporary Debates. Edited by Anthony Giddens and David Held. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Awesome job! Excellent summary of key theories of the modern state's historical development as a significant institutional force. Of course, modern capitalism, the modern state, and the modern public have emerged as a consequence of these temporlaized, but concrete relations.
How should we view this in terms of globalization and neoliberalism? It would appear that the state's role has become one of compliance and impotence in the face of a declining national capitalist class. I agree that there must be capitalist factions, but within the sphere of neoliberalism, hasn't the conflict between such factions lessened considerably?
The state's success as a planner within the post-WWII world appeared as a historical phenomenon, but was that a result of the conflict between the state and capitalists, or was it more the result of the conflict between fascism (state command economy) and liberal capitalism within a democratic framework?
I know there must be much to say about the rise of multinational firms under post-Fordism and transnational capitalism under globalization.
Have you read Erik Olin Wright's construction of hybrid capitalism? The fact that capital flows freely across state borders must indicate a different form of capital from those international trade regimes that were linked to precious metals in the past and were secured by a country's metals deposits. How about central banks? Are these more or less necessary today and who are their patrons? The state or capital?
Anyway, thanks for a wonderful read and getting my thoughts churning!

Reply

Kate Willyard

12/30/2015 03:13:57 pm

Thanks Billy. I really appreciate your thoughts on the subject. I haven't read Erik Olin Wright. I'll have to put it on my list.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Author

Kate Willyard is a political and economic sociologist interested in human organization and the environment.